Drug Legalization

Watch Nick Gillespie on Colbert Report, Talking Pot Legalization, 11.30PM


I'm scheduled to be on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report tonight, discussing the recent embrace of pot legalization by a couple of states, a majority of Americans, and a smattering of politicians (even or especially among Republicans).

The Colbert Report airs at 11.30pm ET on Comedy Central. Go here for more details.

Here's my quick brief on legalizing weed:

NEXT: Police: No Hakken 'Anti-Government Rally,' Despite Other Departments' Claims

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. and a smattering of politicians (even or especially among Republicans)

    I’m more curious about which Democrat politicians support marijuana (or other prohibited drug) legalization. As reason always reports how rare and unusual it is for a Republican or conservative or SoCon to come out in favor of lessening restrictions or outright legalization there must be many more Democrats who do. Who are they?

    1. State legislators, mostly.

    2. Barney Frank?

      As obnoxious as I found Frank, he and Ron Paul teaming up on decriminalizing pot at the Federal level always made me happy.

    3. Hillary will put out a video explaining her neverending support as soon as it is politically convienent.

      1. shouldn’t Obama likewise “evolve” on this kinda like he did on gay marriage?

    4. Most in Congress do not, but whenever there’s a bill to legalize marijuana (or move towards legalization) most of the sponsors and co-sponsors are Democrats. And if we’re talking about the general population, Democrats and liberals are much more open to legalization than Republicans and conservatives are. I don’t know why you pretend that this isn’t true

      1. whenever there’s a bill to legalize marijuana (or move towards legalization) most of the sponsors and co-sponsors are Democrats

        You couldn’t even name one. (a bill or multiple Democrat sponsors/cosponsors)

        Where is the Rightwing counterpart to Patrick Kennedy’s progressive anti-marijuana group?

        1. Barney Frank sponsored the same bill Ron Paul did a couple years ago. Overall, the bill was sponsored by 15 Democrats compared just 3 Republicans. And earlier this year, two bills were introduced by Democrats. One of them got one Republican cosponsor (compared to 9 Democrats) while the other got 6 Democrats and no Republican cosponsors.



          “Where is the Rightwing counterpart to Patrick Kennedy’s progressive anti-marijuana group?”

          Seriously? Do you think SAM is the first anti-marijuana group in the country?

          Seriously, why do you feel the need to so desperately defend conservatives? It’s not like I’m saying liberals or Democrats are great on marijuana or the WOD. They’re not. But there’s a mountain of evidence you choose to ignore that they are more open to legalizing weed than conservative Republicans are. Why is this even controversial?

  2. If libertarians would stop being libertines for a few months it might be possible to get some traction on issues that matter. Whether or not hippies smoke pot is meaningless, but whether the government will raise my marginal tax rates to pay for LaQueena’s Obamaphone actually matter.

    1. “Libertines”?


      Please continue being this stupid, it is fucking hilarious. You can be the new comedic relief for H&R.

      1. A new Slappy for our times?

        1. I don’t think it’s new, I think it’s Slappy under yet another handle.

      2. To be fair Epi, some of us are libertines.

        1. And some of us are hedonists. So? It doesn’t change the stupidity of his posts.

    2. Whether or not hippies smoke pot is meaningless.

      Whether or not the government sustains the most advanced police state in the history of the world by criminalizing burnt vegetable matter, destroying billions of dollars and millions of lives, is not meaningless. It is the cornerstone and emblem for nearly everything to which we object.

      1. Have you considered how much of your taxes go toward fighting pot and incarcerating it’s users ?

        The amount spent on cell phone subsidies last year (2.2B, source WSJ) is less than the budget of the DEA alone.

        1. Gosh darn threads, was trying to reply
          to original race-baiting idiot Thelron.

        2. The DEA isn’t the be-all-end-all of our police state.

          Hell, the criminal prohibition itself isn’t even the be-all-end-all of the destructive nature of the prohibition. Unseen effects and all that.

          1. The cost of locking up one prisoner is $25,000. We have about 300,000 drug offenders in prison at any one time.

            Quick math:

            300,000 = 7.5 Billion dollars.

            Add to that the cost of enforcement. The cost of people not being able to get a job since they’re convicted criminals who end up on welfare or food stamps. The cost of the trials. The fact that people in prison can’t work and the economy therefore produces fewer goods and services. The cost of jail construction. The social cost when we can’t keep a rapist in prison because the cells are overcrowded.

            Yeah. Drug legalization is just about hippies smoking pot.

            1. Just one caveat: you can’t get food stamps if you have a felony drug conviction. You can still get them if you have a felony conviction for rape or even murder, but not if it’s for drug possession. True story.

    3. You’re starting to get a bit rusty.

      1. Hey IronSheik – go suck Ann Coulter’s dick.

        1. There’s no room for him there with John hogging the whole thing.

          I kid, I kid!

          1. John’s not nearly as bad. Tulpa on the other hand…

    4. I hope you one day experience the 3 felonies a day phenomenon for yourself. (Well, it’s way more than 3 now)

      The irony is that for all what some people perceive as vices, or everything that the ‘anti-libertine’ crowd wants to avoid addressing, and generally everything directly criminalized, it takes no material effort, no money, no time, no resources to actually accomplish the liberty enhancing outright repeal needed.

      (As opposed to “reform” of any sort, with regulations, etc)

      1. Just like I destroyed Hulk Hogan, I am destroying your world view.

    5. RACIST

      (like, really)

    6. Whether or not hippies smoke pot is meaningless

      It means something to the hippies who smoke pot. Or are you the arbiter of all meaning?

  3. I hope you bring up his old saying “Reality has a well-known liberal bias”, agree with him on it, and then point out that there are no liberals in the major parties, that liberals are known by the name “Libertarian” these days.

  4. No.

    1. P. Brooks identity is finally revealed!

  5. Colbert’s stale and predictable shtick must be a real challenge to sit through.

    1. I must give Colbert credit for being an adept slayer of straw men.

      1. Stoned 18-35 year old males are his demographic.

        1. The only people I’ve met who are actually really into Colbert and Stewart are high school English teachers.

    2. No more so than Maher’s or Coulter’s, I imagine.

      1. Coulter? Aaagh. Nasal whining is her shtick.

  6. 11:30? Is this some kind of trick to get me to watch the entire episode? I’m going to DVR it just in case.

    1. “It’s a trap!!!!” /Adm. Ackbar

      1. Bet you feel like a fish out of water, eh Admiral?

    2. I won’t bother. Probably will be video here tomorrow. Besides, Cass Sunstein is also booked, and I don’t think I could stomach it.

  7. So much for Troll Free Thursday.

  8. You can’t have an honest discussion with a person in character. I am afraid I expect less from this than from the Maher appearance.

    1. Colbert does have a way of ruining guest appearances but clinging to closely to his persona like a security blanket. As soon as a guest really starts driving towards a point worthy of gaining the interest his audience, Colbert tends to awkwardly step on the point with an in-character joke.

      I get the feeling that his typical, attention-deficit audience member loses focus and forgets a lot of what the guest had to say.

      Because Gillespie is going to have to explain some very complicated stuff on the drug war in the space of about 7 minutes, I wish him luck in dealing with Colbert.

      1. I might add that I personally detect a political skew in where Colbert tends to insert his persona, as if to distract from an important point a non-liberal guest has to make. But he even makes liberal guest appearances awkward and distracting on occasion.

        I don’t know. I just get the feeling that Colbert just isn’t a good interviewer. Stewart has his faults, but he knows when to drop the comedy and allow his guests to speak.

        1. Colbert would be great if he weren’t so blatantly partisan. If he could work up a Kieth Olberman type persona or something for a change every now and then, it would be much more interesting.

          1. Geez, even a Keith Olbermann satire would be passe by now.

      2. As George Will showed twice, the secret to “winning” the interview is to show up with your own even more over the top character until Colbert starts corpsing.

        1. Gillespie, take notes.

  9. Tax money is a means to an end. The drug war is a mean to the same end; power. The drug war has facilitated the greatest power increases for government at all levels, more so than any taxes could. This is why the argument that the drug war should be replaced with tax revenue is unconvincing to many Pols.

    1. “The drug war has facilitated the greatest power increases for government at all levels, more so than any taxes could.”

      I don’t know how you can quantify that. Governments tax at all levels as well.

      1. It seems unlikely to me that tax revenue would have allowed govt. to turn the fourth amendment into dead-letter, or allow the summary and arbitrary seizure of property.

        But you are right, I did just pull that out of my ass.

        1. “It seems unlikely to me that tax revenue would have allowed govt. to turn the fourth amendment into dead-letter, or allow the summary and arbitrary seizure of property.”

          I guess you could try not paying taxes and see how the gov’t treats your 4th amendment rights or property but I don’t suggest it. This science does need a guinea pig, though.

        2. They’re a lot more likely to know you didn’t pay taxes than if you have a bag of weed in your house

  10. those guyus seem to know whats going on. Wow.


  11. There’s already been enough conversation about how Colbert’s once cutting-edge satire of FoxNews went dull even before his show went on the air, but another criticism I have to lay on Colbert is that the irony of his pompous grandiosity has pretty much evaporated away completely. Now, I really do think his audience is sincerely fawning over him when they introduce an episode with chants of “Stephen, Stephen, Stephen!”

  12. No can do Nick. I’ve got a gym class far too early in the morning to stay up for this. I’ll be going straight to bed after drinks with that PhD… Unless you put some alt-text in the bargain.

  13. my friend’s ex-wife makes $87/hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her pay was $18363 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site and go to home tab for more detail— BIG76.COM

  14. Spoiler Alert: Colbert will try to make you agree with some Somalia-like governmental structure.

  15. I might watch this. I’m up, WTH. Colbert sucks as a comedian, he’s incredibly boring.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.